Donald Trump’s highly personal, racially tinged attacks on a federal judge overseeing a pair of lawsuits against him have set off a wave of alarm among legal experts, who worry that the ­Republican presidential candidate’s vendetta signals a remarkable disregard for judicial independence.

First, will WaPo commit to the general principle that to criticize the judge in your case is to disregard judicial independence? Someone has a PR problem when they are sued, are they not supposed to speak about it? Can they not complain that the judge doesn't like them? It seems unremarkable to me. The only thing remarkable is how vividly and boldly Trump phrases his complaints. Would WaPo like to argue for a special rule for those who speak effectively?

But what really bothers me is accusing Trump of making "racially tinged attacks on [a] federal judge" while highlighting relevant quote. It's especially... remarkable... given that everything around the part I want to read is quoted verbatim in paragraphs 4 and 5:

“I have a judge who is a hater of Donald Trump, a hater. He’s a hater,” Trump said at a campaign rally in San Diego, adding that he believed the Indiana-born judge was “Mexican.”

He also suggested taking action against the judge after the election: “They ought to look into Judge Curiel, because what Judge Curiel is doing is a total disgrace. Okay? But we will come back in November. Wouldn’t that be wild if I am president and come back and do a civil case? Where everybody likes it. Okay. This is called life, folks.”

You have to go all the way to paragraph 16 to find the text of the quote about the judge's ethnicity:

"The judge, who happens to be, we believe, Mexican, which is great. I think that’s fine. You know what? I think the Mexicans are going to end up loving Donald Trump when I give all these jobs, okay?"

Yes, there's something crude or ignorant about referring to Mexican-Americans as "Mexicans," but "Mexican" isn't an insult, especially when it's followed with "which is great" and "I think that’s fine" and a digression into why Mexican-Americans ought to love him. Moreover, "Mexican" is not a race, so it's crude or ignorant for WaPo to call this "racially tinged."

WaPo's full headline is "Trump’s personal, racially tinged attacks on federal judge alarm legal experts." Who are these "legal experts" and what, exactly, is alarming them? I'm sure there are thousands of legal experts who are alarmed about Trump, but let's see whom WaPo got to give quotes. First, there's the lawprof Arthur Hellman, but I don't see "alarm" in what he says and I don't see anything about race (or ethnicity):

“Having a presidential candidate embroiled in litigation totally unrelated to the political system . . . that is what is so novel about this. And then you add to this the personal criticism,” said Arthur Hellman, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh. “It’s personal all the way, and that’s what makes this different.”

There follow 4 paragraphs of material not attributed to Hellman, ending with what, perhaps, the WaPo reporters were trying to get Hellman to say: "Trump’s attacks on [Judge] Curiel stand out for their personal nature, for the racial remarks and for the suggestion by a potential president that someone 'ought to look into' the judge." The only part of that connected to Hellman is "personal" and definitely not "racial."

Next, we get the lawprof Charles Gardner Geyh, who's at Indiana’s Maurer School of Law:

[Geyh] said he has no problem with presidents or presidential candidates criticizing judges or judicial decisions. But, he said, “there’s a line between disagreement and sort of throwing the judiciary under the bus that I think is at issue here.”

Geyh doesn't sound alarmed. He sounds sober and noncommittal. He — quite properly, I think — approves of candidates criticizing judges. He also notes a "line" and an "issue." That is, he doesn't tell us exactly what the line is and doesn't say whether Trump has crossed it. He's only saying that we're talking about whether Trump has crossed some line beyond what's acceptable in the criticism of judges. Where's the alarm?!

This article has a terrible headline. And yet I see it is #1 on WaPo "Most Read" list in the side bar. The headline is clickbait — truly reprehensible clickbait.

It makes me want to quote Trump (from his press conference the other day): "The press is so dishonest and so unfair.... [T]he political press is among the most dishonest people I've ever met...."

118 comments:

Yes, there's something crude or ignorant about referring to Mexican-Americans as "Mexican," but "Mexican" isn't an insult, especially when it's followed with "which is great" --Yeah. Some of his best friends are...

Race is anything a Lefty decides it to be. The lawsuit is being pushed by people that have Hillary on speed dial and have paid her $900K to give talks. But let's not get into any of that. They are just journalists.

But Ann, Mexican is now a race because that fits the core organizing principle of today's Dem party: Dividing us by race. Diversity.

When Trump said there were some illegal aliens from Mexico, he made an objective statement of fact. It is also true that the Mexican government encourages people to illegally come to the United States. But his factual statements have been twisted into a hatred of all things Mexican (except taco salads).

An unforced error by Trump. Why even mention the judge's ethnicity? I get it, Trump is implying that the judge has a bias and should probably recuse himself. Which is an absurd notion that would allow a KKK member to disqualify a Jewish, black or Catholic judge from hearing his case.

Anyway, Trump is a very clever man. The press unwittingly does his bidding whenever there is a controversy about something he says. Invariably, the press needlessly exaggerates and distorts the truth, thus undermining their own credibility and making Trump stronger. Trump probably inserted "Mexican" to trigger this attack on him by the press.

Why does he mention the guy's ethnic background at all? Is the judge's Hispanic heritage related to this decision (whether Trump ripped off a lot of his marks in the Trump U. scam) in any way? Did the judge make some comment along the lines of "as a Mexican American, I can't wait to screw over an honest businessman like Trump"?

Far as I can tell, Trump injected ethnic heritage into this himself, and while you may be playing cutesy with his quotes ("I'm going to be great with Mexicans, believe me") you're being willfully obtuse about the real question which is why is he bringing up "Mexican-ness" here unless to imply that a Mexican American cannot be impartial and do his duty as a judge. It's part of what makes him disgusting, and his followers can do all sorts of mental gymnastics to claim Trump is the victim here and it's everyone else picking on him, but it doesn't wash. Imagine someone suggesting Thurgood Marshall shouldn't have been able to rule on any segregation cases on that same basis.

The media are determined to be the biased lying asshats he told them they were in his news conference on Tuesday. It's the democrat-media-academic complex that is incapable of being an honest broker of news and information. They can't help but fulfill his prophecies!

Tinged does impart the sense of a trace or small degree. Are you saying that there is no racial tinge to Trump's remarks? The word Mexican means a person from Mexico but it also means a person of mixed Spanish and Indian descent. Since the judge is an American,Trump is either using the word wrong or in its racial sense.

""Mexican" is a bit old-fashioned, but synonymous with the current "Hispanic," "Latino," and whatever else it might be this month. "

No, it isn't. Mexico is one country. There are many other countries that produce the immigrants we call Hispanic/Latino. Grouping them all together is an interesting process. We do it with "Asian" too. Why/when do we do that? And when do we de-group the nationalities, as Trump did? Trump also connected the Mexican-American to all Mexicans, which was a re-grouping. There are reasons for all these things — it's using language to do something political to and with people.

I think you're cherry-picking the article to make it look like it says less than it does. Maybe the WaPo buries the lede, but the problem is here:

“I think it has to do with perhaps the fact that I’m very, very strong on the border,” Trump said then. “Now, he is Hispanic, I believe. He is a very hostile judge to me.”

Trump is declaring in public that a Latino judge has a vendetta against him because of his immigration policies, solely based on the fact that he is Latino. (A Republican-appointed judge, I might add.) That's not racially-tinged--it's racist.

It has been alleged that the judge in question is a member of "La Raza," which is described in fairly benign terms in Wikipedia but other sources point to a more extremist agenda.

I find it interesting that Democrat judges find ways to open sealed proceedings when it can hurt Republican candidates. Most famously, Barack Obama would not have won his seat in the United States Senate except for a judge opening the sealed divorce proceedings between Republican senatorial candidate Jack Ryan and his former wife, Hollywood actress Jeri Lynn Ryan ("7 of 9" for those of you who are Star Trek fans).

I recently found what appears to be the syllabus for a course on judicial ethics for Democrats. It's a sheet of paper that's blank of both sides.

As to the Post, I cut back on home delivery to Sundays only and they offered me the rest of the week, essentially for free. I turned them down. I'm going to drop them entirely when my subscription runs out at the end of the month.

"I think you're cherry-picking the article to make it look like it says less than it does. Maybe the WaPo buries the lede, but the problem is here..."

I left that out because it's from last February and the article presented itself (in paragraphs 4 and 5) as being about something Trump said this past week. You're referring to:

"One of Trump’s earlier jeremiads came in February, when he told Fox News that Curiel was biased against him because of his controversial immigration comments and proposals, including his promises to build a giant wall on the U.S.-Mexico border and deport 11 million illegal immigrants. “I think it has to do with perhaps the fact that I’m very, very strong on the border,” Trump said then. “Now, he is Hispanic, I believe. He is a very hostile judge to me.”"

I could have developed that, but I didn't want to write too much. I wasn't "cherry picking." I was trying to stay on-topic and be fair. I thought I was clear that Trump is implying the judge is biased against him because of his policy on illegal immigration.

Left Bank of the Charles is correct: "Tinged does impart the sense of a trace or small degree. Are you saying that there is no racial tinge to Trump's remarks? The word Mexican means a person from Mexico but it also means a person of mixed Spanish and Indian descent. Since the judge is an American,Trump is either using the word wrong or in its racial sense."

Keep in mind, Trump grew up in the construction industry. I can tell you from my own work experience in that industry, "Mexican" absolutely refers to anyone with South American indigenous ancestry--i.e., not just Spanish-speaking, but more importantly short, dark-skinned--and implies "unskilled, casual laborer." It has very little to do with nationality and everything to do with race. It's a slur.

Trump and the media are symbiotic organisms. They both lie and exaggerate to drive clicks and coverage.

30 seconds of Googling Judge Curiel turns up that he is in fact, Mexican-American. He also was a George H.W. Bush appointee US DA who fought Mexican drug cartels successfully, while dealing with assassination threats from the same cartels. He was unanimously confirmed as a federal district court judge. Trump doesn't like him because he isn't intimidated by a sleaze like Trump, having dealt with far more dangerous individuals previously.

The focusing on the Mexican part is just "boob bait for the Bubbas" to drive sympathy for Trump as a strategy for dealing with the inevitable setbacks Trump will face in this litigation, while running for president. It's the alt-right version of Hillary's "vast right wing conspiracy" deflections over her own sleazy legal problems. Both sides' idiot partisans lap up the exact same kind of argument in similar situations, as we have already seen in this very thread.

I think that older quote actually puts Trump in a better light, because he said "Hispanic" instead of "Mexican" and because he makes a clear statement of the basis for his belief that the judge may be biased.

Note that he doesn't say the judge should have recused himself. He's trying to put pressure on the judge, and he may also be deliberately stirring up anxiety in the electorate about the changing demographics of America.

Professor, yes, that is clear. But Trump's insinuation is based on nothing but the judge being "Mexican." How is that not "racially tinged?" That's what your headline implies--that the claims in the article's headlines are inflated, when they're not.

I disagree that the article is presenting itself as being solely about what Trump said last week. t clearly states the time frame of the different statements, though it wants--correctly, I think--to connect the two. Every time Trump brings up the Judge's "Mexicanness," he's implying there's a bias.

It's "effective speech," sure, because he gets plausible deniability from adding "that's great," while reaping the benefits of the implication that Curiel is biased against him because Curiel is Mexican-American. It's effective, but pretty gross.

Ann, you are going to get nothing else done if you try to analyze all of the unfair media attacks on Trump from now until the election. It's the way they always treat GOP candidates, and this time it will be unbelievably ugly because 1) he fights back, 2) they have plenty of willing "Republicans" who will turn on him, 3) he is actually going to say "mean things" about Hillary, and, most importantly, 4) they are determined to regain/protect their roles as the arbiters of who we may elect and who we may not.

I'm not bothering with most of the major media until after November. If you look at their TV ratings and/or circulation, most of the country already doesn't. They are already embarrassing themselves and are not worth my time.

All republicans and conservatives will be called racist..ist of some kind when the democrat media is busy supporting their candidate. What is beautiful about trump and his supporters is that FINALLY someone is saying, who cares what you dishonest democrat operatives say. Go blow it out your ear. Delicious.

I was at the Trump rally last week. I cringed when he said "Mexican." But Trump said nothing about the Judge's alleged La Raza ties. Subsequently, the topic of La Raza came up and I thought "If that's true, perhaps there is something to Trump's claim." I would like to hear you, Christopher, justify La Raza to anyone.

The judge was indeed born in Indiana...East Chicago, Indiana, which is apparently a majority-minority armpit of the south side of Chicago. 50% = Hispanic, 39% = black, 11% = white. Good old Indiana! Heart of the Heartland!

When he was a prosecutor, he was able to hold meetings with his bosses and Mexican drug enforcement folks entirely in Spanish.

Said the (future) judge:''We were working without the disconnect of interpreters and barriers of culture..." So, no "cultural barriers" between Indiana-born Gonzalo and the representatives of the Mexican government.

Per The Daily Caller, Judge Gonzalo is an honored member of “La Raza Lawyers of San Diego”

Born of Mexican immigrants, brought up in heavily Hispanic urban East Chicago, a member of a group that you KNOW just despises Trump with a purple fury...

I can see perfectly reasonable reasons for the judge to recuse himself, or to be replaced on this case. To avoid "even the appearance of impropriety", I think it would be prudent...

It is hard to keep up with. "Latino" pretty much means Argentine to me; I am that old.When I first arrived in New Mexico, there were three kinds of people here: Indians, Mexicans, and Anglos, and if you were not one of the first two, you were an Anglo, regardless of skin color or national or ethnic orgin.

These games we are playing today are silly. I have even seen'heard media twits refer to the "African-Americans" in Africa. The other day one of these genius pundits referred to "the large immigrant population in Albuquerque." No, our "Mexicans" are not immgrants, nor were their ancestors. In 1846 the United States came to them; not the other way around.

Calling me "Norwegian" is not a derogatory term. I am one. Calling me "Squarehead," "Norski," "Norrbagge," etc., that is derogatory.

rhhardin said...What Trump is doing, if anybody is actually interested, is throwing sand in the media PC gearbox.

Reporters and cameras were isolated on a large pedestal/platform at the San Diego rally, while crowd was at floor level. It was difficult from my perspective to tell whether the press platform or the podium was actually higher but I believe that the press were elevated a yard or so higher than Trump. Trump played them magnificently. They were like an island in a sea of hostility.

He could avoid some of that cringe if he did focus more on La Raza..and overstayed worker visas. But everyone has their theories on why he frames things in kindergarten blocks.Lefties will call it "dog whistles" and Trumpsters will point to the genius of "Made ya look". But judging his flip flop on worker visas, he just might be that ignorant.

Trump wants all his alt-right Chumps spreading the idea that reason he is getting his ass kicked in this litigation isn't because he is a sleaze who defrauded people but because the presiding judge has it in for him due to extraneous factors.

Hillary wants all her chumps spreading the idea that the reason she is in trouble over all her various illegalities isn't the illegalities but a vast right wing conspiracy.

It's the same bullshit, spread by the same kind of mindless sycophants.

Consider the possibility that they are both lying scumbags not deserving of being in positions of power in this country. The color of the "team jersey" doesn't alter their fundamental natures.

"The headline is clickbait — truly reprehensible clickbait." As opposed to all the headlines that are fair and balanced toward Republicans? But you don't go far enough in deconstructing the logic of Prog outrage. "Mexican" is now an epithet aimed at the Underprivileged Other. Since racial bias is the greatest sin in American politics, any UO can be most easily exploited for political purposes if treated as a "race." Mexican is therefore a racial category, anything said about Mexicans is "racial," and anyone saying any such thing a racist. Exception: in a case of UO vs. UO, the darker UO gets the nod, for example by making the "Mexican" a "white Hispanic" if dealing with an African-American. Exception to the exception, the latest turn in the Prog hierarchy of ideological trump cards: racial UO loses to sexual UO, as in the case of the black ACLU director in Atlanta, who objected to her daughters being exposed to men in a restroom.

I betting this may be another "Don't throw me in the briar patch" moment. If all the deposition testimony hostile to Trump has been sealed then so has all the exculpatory. Bad students - sore losers - expected secret to success and didn't like the secret was hard work - word of praise from successful students. I assume the judge can't just say only the negative things can be talked about.

I've noted over the years that "the right people" can talk about sealed court proceedings without fear while the people on the other side face sanctions if they speak up. This could well be the case here. The unfortunate thing is that this court of public opinion could damage the case for people who might have been hurt if they become to be seen as political shills.

The Washington Post wants to have its class diversity and anti-native policies, too. The story is an expose of internal dissonance and projection caused by an inability to reconcile the special and peculiar interests that pervade their political life.

It just never occurs to some people that the reason Trump keeps losing court cases is because his position is not a winning one.

It has to be because of some kind of hidden, "real" reason that their Hero keeps losing.

I did see someone attempt to blame the victims of the Trump University scam for their own victim-hood in a comment above. There may be a constituency out there for the proposition that single moms and retirees should have their life savings stolen and their credit histories wrecked by a Manhattan billionaire in pursuit of a get-rich-quick fantasy. That might work. Go with that.

Every time Trump does something like this, I worry. Is he playing chess at the 3D level or is he an idiot? I'm all aboard the Trump Train for reasons that are both vast and complex and at the same time quite simple: someone must put the PC/self-righteous/neo-Puritan/suicidal left culture to the mat and there is only one man in America capable of doing it. Sometimes I think Scott Adams has nailed it, that Trump is the Master Persuader par excellence, and other times I think he's a blustering fool who is way out of his depth. I seriously go back and forth on this daily.

But even if he is the bombastic blowhard he must win. See my reason above.

His chapter of La Raza claims not to be affiliated with the national La Raza organization. He just participated in giving a scholarship to an illegal immigrant. He headed the selection process. That would mena he had knowledge that all those applicants were US lawbreakers and being a Fderal judge, did nothing about that. But that is par for the course now, isn't it? We are so screwed up, it's pathetic.

Trump gives people who are critical of him "a little poke", as he said about Gov. Martinez. He also did it to Judge Curiel, who is obviously more than a little attached to his heritage. Trump has now given the judge a heck of a problem going forward because if he is at all ethical, he can't easily skew the proceedings against Trump. On the other hand, the federal bench sticks together for the most part, and if Judge Curiel were to recuse himself, Trump better expect no mercy from the judge's successor. He had better settle at the right time, and I predict he will after the election.

. There are many other countries that produce the immigrants we call Hispanic/Latino. Grouping them all together is an interesting process. We do it with "Asian" too. Why/when do we do that? And when do we de-group the nationalities, as Trump did?

I don't understand why it is *not* racist to group people together when we talk about their "issues" or when we talk about them as a voting bloc, but then it *is* racist to speak as if a member of that group holds an opinion we've ascribed to that group.

"Repulsion is playing a defining role in this year's election. Whoever out repulses the other side loses. Particularly repulsive are the clingier hangers on."

It's been taken to new levels this year. For me it's like a car wreck--you just can't look away, even when you know it's going to reach new depths.

"Trump has now given the judge a heck of a problem going forward because if he is at all ethical, he can't easily skew the proceedings against Trump."

Or, in usual Trump fashion, any ruling that is not in his favor regardless of its merits is "unfair" and the judge is "totally biased". Trump has long ago lost any credibility in such matters like the boy who cried wolf. Can you actually picture him seeing a ruling against him and saying "yeah, we lost but the judge was fair"? Is there anything in his history or personality that makes you think he could do that?

"There may be a constituency out there for the proposition that single moms and retirees should have their life savings stolen and their credit histories wrecked by a Manhattan billionaire in pursuit of a get-rich-quick fantasy"

There may also be a constituency of crack smokin' no-trumpet-playing assholes. I know of one so far.

Chickelit, I'm not interested in what La Raza is or isn't, though I don't think the right-wing website exposes going around here are very objective or persuasive. Trump isn't suggesting that Curiel's affiliation with La Raza indicates bias. He's saying his Mexican heritage indicates bias.

Curiel can't be impartial because he's Mexican-American. That's the claim Trump is making, and it is racist.

There are natural classes, including race and gender. The issue raised by class diversity schemes is a failure to reconcile moral and natural imperatives. For example, women and men are two natural classes. However, morally, women and men are equal, and, naturally, are equal in most respects, but because of some limited cases are complementary. The idea of equal and complementary causes some people fits.

The headline is not just click-bait. It's Google-fodder for October when people are searching "Donald Trump" before they make up their minds who to vote for. They don't have to read the articles, just see a list of similar headlines.... And Google will be happy to skew the algorithm to push these to the top no matter the date or relevance (see Romney, Mitt: killed a man, dog on car, thinks Russia is biggest threat, binders full of women.)

Social snobbery in the past labelled people as either PLU - people like us - or "not really PLU." Now liberal snobs in the academy and media characterize people in the news as either PLU - people like them (the urban, educated elite with "correct" opinions) - or non-PLU. For the former nearly anything can be rationalized (see Clinton, Hillary), while the latter are fair game no matter what (see Palin, Sarah).

Christopher said...Curiel can't be impartial because he's Mexican-American. That's the claim Trump is making, and it is racist.

In fact Trump did not make this claim. He noted that Curiel is biased - based on his decisions and statements - and offered his ethnicity as a possible explanation. In his assertion the bias is not driven by his ethnicity. Further the link between ethnicity and hostility at Trump because of his previous immigration comments is no more racist than statements saying Trump will not perform well among hispanics because of those statements. The only difference is who makes the statement.

People just can't talk about race. Along with the WAPO example they seem to presume racism whenever people they don't like mention race. Maybe they don't want to think about it too closely and be forced into a more accurate but less politically appealing conclusion.

There is a fundamental aspirational quality to Trump Chumps' support of their Hero. It's the same scam in a political context as the Trump university scam was in a real estate context.

He's selling you the secret sauce. If only you pull the lever for him, attend his rallies, defend him to your friends and family, you too can feel powerful, rich, unbound by ordinary rules of civility and adulthood. You may not be rich, famous, and sleeping with a former super-model, but you can feel like you are, if only for that few moments in the voting booth.

Always wanted to speak openly about how you fear people who look different than you and speak a different language, but felt constrained by everyone around you realizing that you are a bigot? Support Trump and he will do it for you!

Hillary represents the same thing for ugly, bitter, first wives. They are a perfect match. The asshole ex-husband and the bitch ex-wife running against each other to see who can be most hated by the rest of us.

American politics has become a giant, dysfunctional marriage counseling session.

Minus the racial angle, there was also the 1996 dust-up between the Clinton administration and federal district judge Harold Baer, Jr. regarding a case that involved an illegal search.

Clinton's press secretary ended up telling reporters at a White House press briefing that President Clinton "regrets his decision" to appoint Baer to the federal bench." He also called Baer's ruling in the case "obviously a wrongheaded decision." Not long afterwards, Baer reversed his initial ruling.

amielalune said... "Ann, you are going to get nothing else done if you try to analyze all of the unfair media attacks on Trump from now until the election.... I'm not bothering with most of the major media until after November...."

Ha ha. Quite a retreat from your usual attitude, but the message is the same. I get it. And no, I'm not going to stop.

La Raza is actually an ethnic college fraternity that mostly serves as a mutual aid organization to help the Chicano mafia get government jobs and contracts. Their people are mostly out of the Cal State system. A lot of So Cal corruption is tied to that system.

It just never occurs to some people that the reason Trump keeps losing court cases is because his position is not a winning one.

It has to be because of some kind of hidden, "real" reason that their Hero keeps losing.

I did see someone attempt to blame the victims of the Trump University scam for their own victim-hood in a comment above. There may be a constituency out there for the proposition that single moms and retirees should have their life savings stolen and their credit histories wrecked by a Manhattan billionaire in pursuit of a get-rich-quick fantasy. That might work. Go with that.

Thanks for the clarification. I was under the impression that they were the same type of suckers stupid enough to send money to Nigerian Princes. Was totally unaware single moms and retirees were robbed.Were firearms involved? Real estate investing is actually fairly simple. Buy low, sell high.

"In fact Trump did not make this claim. He noted that Curiel is biased - based on his decisions and statements - and offered his ethnicity as a possible explanation. In his assertion the bias is not driven by his ethnicity."

How are your second and third sentences not inconsistent? If Trump is suggesting the judge's ethnicity explains his bias, then that speaks for itself. In other words, a Mexican American judge is unfit to sit on a Trump case simply because of this ethnic background. There's no way to interpret Trump's statement in a non-bigoted manner. Whether he truly believes what he says, or is just stoking bigotry to excuse what he suspects will be an unfavorable ruling (because of course no one could be fair and rule against Trump), this is disgusting and reveals a thought process highly dangerous in a commander in chief.

Look, we can go on at length about how awful Hillary is and what intelligent people have to do with their terrible choice this November, but let's not go down the rabbit hole of trying to excuse the particularly disgusting things Trump says or does.

My ancestors settled in Quebec, Canada in the late 17th or early 18th century. My grandfather moved here,to the US, in the early 20th century. All my life I've been told I am or have been identified by others as, French-Canadian. Sometime, it is cut short, to just, French. I don't mind either, especially when I'm in parts of Maine where the question, "What are you French?" is meant as a comment on your general intelligence. I always enjoy saying, "Yes," to that question.

Some of my ancestors came over from Siberia, not many but some. They settled eventually in northeastern America or what was to become America. They are Iroquois or Mohawk, of the old Six Nations. They still consider themselves an independent nation, merely allied with Ottawa and Albany. Some people are aware of my Indian blood and refer to me as such. None of the tomahawk chops, the names of sports teams, like the Braves or the Redskins bother me. But if I were to stand trial or have a judge in a civil suit who is known by his affiliations to be prejudicial to Anglos or Indians I'd object to that. It's only self-preservation, an instinct my people brought from France and Siberia with them, that I do not lack.

Most of the posters on this site, in my opinion, are woefully lacking in that instinct, it's been civilized right out of them.

"Look, we can go on at length about how awful Hillary is and what intelligent people have to do with their terrible choice this November, but let's not go down the rabbit hole of trying to excuse the particularly disgusting things Trump says or does."

Pointing out a member of la raza is biased because of his race is just common sense. It is implied in the name.

"I don't think anyone from the Obama side of the aisle is thinking twice about what he did as they criticize Trump."

I've seen a few writers try to draw the distinction, and they can say what they want to live with themselves. But the principle isn't dependent on what leftist hypocrites say or do.

"Pointing out a member of la raza is biased because of his race is just common sense. It is implied in the name."

Arguing that one's affiliations affect their bias is one thing, though mere membership in an advocacy group with a broad agenda doesn't alone prove anything (any more than membership in NAACP). But Trump did not base his charge on La Raza affiliation, or anything else that this judge said or did that implies Trump would get an unfair hearing. He focused on him being "Mexican", as if that alone is disqualifying.

And doesn't Trump keep trying to argue that he's going to win over the Mexicans? If he's going to get the Mexican vote, why is he so certain this judge's Mexican background will make him biased? If he can win over millions of Hispanics, why can't he win over one judge?

The answer is obvious when you consider what Trump is all about. Constant excuses and a belief that anyone who doesn't adore him is an unfair enemy, and no attack is ever too low--even resorting to bigotry--to scare off an adversary. Maybe that's admirable to some people, but anyone who prefers limited government and at least some minimum of character in our leaders, that's a bridge too far.

This is just an attempt to poison the well by Trump. He knows that his case isn't good and doesn't look good for his election prospects. On the merits, that is. So, he has to get the perception of the case in the minds of the electorate to be on something other than the merits.

What has come out thus far about Trump University has validated what most thinking people familiar with Trump's history would have thought it to be. IOW, a high-pressure con job, that specifically preyed upon people who were desperate and unsophisticated about investing, and who were likely to interpret Trump in light of his decades of brand promotion as some kind of specialized expert.

I don't blame him for doing what he does best to try to control an inevitable bad outcome. I do blame the Chumps for falling for it yet again, even after 40 years of his record of running such scams being very well known. It isn't a secret that he does this kind of stuff.

And yet, and yet. The same predictable, not-so-subtle racial and ethnic insinuations get the Trump Chumps to sit up and clap like trained seals. Oh, the judge is a member of certain ethnic pride associations that we don't like, so ergo, all of the merit of the case against TU means nothing. The fact that the judge has a 40 year history of his own of never having any such bias affect his job means absolutely nothing, of course. The fact that the judge was confirmed unanimously only means that the GOPe has it in for Trump again, yes?

A comment above even insinuated that because the judge credited his own language skills and familiarity with the culture as a key to getting major Mexican drug cartel figures convicted, then that actually means he is a hidden Mexican infiltrator of some kind. so, is it a good thing or not that US law enforcement understands the culture they are trying to police? I guess not if it means Trump loses a fraud case 15 years later.

Chickelit, I challenge you to respond to what I said about Trump's attack being based on Curiel's race, and the fact that that is bald racism. You want to change the terms of the question, but you haven't responded to what I said in the first place. Respond to it, or don't, and then I can shake my head in the same condescending way.

"And doesn't Trump keep trying to argue that he's going to win over the Mexicans? If he's going to get the Mexican vote, why is he so certain this judge's Mexican background will make him biased? If he can win over millions of Hispanics, why can't he win over one judge?"

Because you make the explicitly racist mistake of believing all Hispanics want the same thing and therefore there is only one way to reach out to them.

Mexicans came here for a variety of reasons, but one stands out at the top: America is better than Mexico in every way and Mexico is a shithole. There are many many Hispanics that don't like la raza, biased judges, or want the US to become Mexico.

Assertion 1 was by Trump and you think it's racist. Assertion 2 has been made by thousands of people who think Trump is racist, yet no one calls them racist. What's the difference?

There's no way to interpret Trump's statement in a non-bigoted manner.

Of course there is, many people use the exact same rationale (demonstrated above) but because the results are positive no one calls it racist. The result is similar to calling Republican buildings racist because Germans built the Reichstag. Why doesn't building racism transfer to Democratic buildings?

People are sensitive to comments about their affinity groups. Many people consider ethnicity an affinity group and western culture encourages this among non-whites. Since immigration in America is disproportionately Hispanic many people transfer their affinity sensitivity. People are making this exact argument every day to explain why they expect Trump to perform poorly among Hispanic voters.

Christopher said..."Chickelit, I challenge you to respond to what I said about Trump's attack being based on Curiel's race, and the fact that that is bald racism. You want to change the terms of the question, but you haven't responded to what I said in the first place. Respond to it, or don't, and then I can shake my head in the same condescending way."

It is clear you have never had to think critically before. You wont be here long. We have had lefties trickle in here lately and wash out. Trump said a member of la raza is biased because of his race. Because I know you are stupid, la raza means "the race."

It is also clear you don't actually talk to any Hispanics out here in the real world. You believe they all think the same way which is explicitly racist. Many of them, like me, don't like corrupt judges. You see in Mexico they are almost all corrupt. They are not interested in that happening here and are glad trump is taking them on.

"Because you make the explicitly racist mistake of believing all Hispanics want the same thing and therefore there is only one way to reach out to them."

Where did I say there was any way to reach out to them? I'm pointing out that Trump claims he can win over most Hispanics; if he can do that, he should be able to win over one Hispanic judge, and therefore that judge's ethnicity should not be a problem for Trump. And yet he claims it is!

"Assertion 1 was by Trump and you think it's racist. Assertion 2 has been made by thousands of people who think Trump is racist, yet no one calls them racist. What's the difference?"

The difference is Trump is the one who has injected race into this entire discussion, where it didn't belong. If a cashier screws up my order and I say "what do you expect from a black guy" then I'd be bigoted. If he overheard me and said never to come back to his store, and another customer said "he's probably pissed at you for bringing his race into it" that does not make the other customer racist.

Trump did something bigoted here.

"Of course there is, many people use the exact same rationale (demonstrated above) but because the results are positive no one calls it racist. The result is similar to calling Republican buildings racist because Germans built the Reichstag. Why doesn't building racism transfer to Democratic buildings?"

I don't know the specific case you're referring to, but leftists often bring race into the discussion where it doesn't belong, and that's no less disgusting (e.g., a lot of the BLM related protests assume race was the reason a cop shoots someone, when that is by no means proven). Why should Trump get a pass for doing the same thing?

I have asked before on this blog for someone to tell me at what point a Mexican family of "pure" Spanish descent, thus "European" and "white" - though given Spain's history through the ages, that could be considered debateable - transitions into "Mexican" as a separate "race."

La Raza, at least in Arizona, I think is associated with Aztlan, the supposed homeland of the Aztecs, which I think the anthropologists have concluded actually was somewhere in Arizona, though they were not much of a tribe then and was pushed out and migrated southward. Anyway, I think it is more about Indian heritage than "Spanish" Mexican.

I once tried to be "politically correct" and spoke of "Chicanos," but was brought up short and informed that "Chicano" is a California term, and it would be appreciated if I did not use it about resspectable New Mexicans.

"I once tried to be "politically correct" and spoke of "Chicanos," but was brought up short and informed that "Chicano" is a California term, and it would be appreciated if I did not use it about resspectable New Mexicans."

Don't bother trying to be politically correct--those terms change all the time anyway. Chicano and Hispanic sound like fine terms; "Latino" should be phased out because only Italians are truly Latin (and even then...). "Oriental" is preferable to "Asian" because the latter is too broad when you're only referring to Far East Asians.

We'll never do it, but "Negro" should come back. It has a specific connotation to a person of dark skin from certain parts of Africa, but "black" can mean lots of other things (such as "covert" or "sinister"). Why "black" is more acceptable to "negro" makes no sense--probably due to following Malcolm X's ramblings.

And again, all of you people need to get it through your heads that all of what is tday the United States west of the Mississippi once was Spanish territory (apologies to all Indians reading this), and all territory south and west of the (highly irregular) Louisiana Purchase was Nuevo Mexico or California and belonged to Mexico until it was forcefully occupied by the United States Army in the great Mexican landgrab of 1846-48.

Brando said...The difference is Trump is the one who has injected race into this entire discussion, where it didn't belong.

This is more "someone I don't like mentioned race" analysis. Trump linking the perceived bias with ethnicity is no different than election watchers linking expected results to ethnicity.

If a cashier screws up my order and I say "what do you expect from a black guy" then I'd be bigoted.

This isn't the same at all. There is already a link between Trump and immigration which observers were happy to claim results in greater antipathy for Trump among this ethnic group with (as far as I recall) no objection from you. But now you're claiming it's racist for Trump - and Trump only - to make comments which rely on the belief everyone accepts as true (disputes are about how large the group is).

Exactly. Mexicans are not a race. But you do assert that Trump brought race into the discussion so I think you are pitching the word around loosely to make your point about bigotry. Two different things. But I don't see the bigotry in pointing out that the sitting judge, of Mexican descent, could be the wrong guy to decide my case since I have uttered things about Mexicans that he might find objectionable.

WaPo doesn't understand that this is an Anti-"Expert" election. Experts tell us all sorts of shit. They built the faulty food pyramid for crying out loud. The people are tired of the experts who talk endlessly but seem to know no more than they do.

"But you do assert that Trump brought race into the discussion so I think you are pitching the word around loosely to make your point about bigotry. Two different things. But I don't see the bigotry in pointing out that the sitting judge, of Mexican descent, could be the wrong guy to decide my case since I have uttered things about Mexicans that he might find objectionable."

Where I referred to "race" I should have used "ethnicity" or "national origin" but used race for shorthand.

Do you see how Trump is trying to have it both ways? "I'm not insulting Hispanics and in fact Hispanics actually love me, but this guy being Hispanic will be biased against me because I have to assume he took offense at what I said". For all Trump knows, this judge is not offended by anything Trump said at all, and more importantly any good judge will be able to set aside their biases (because everyone has biases) in order to make a fair ruling based on the law. Trump is assuming this man cannot do that because of his race.

But we know what this is really about--Trump is trying to set the stage for claiming the judge's upcoming ruling is unfair, just like he thinks everything is unfair when it doesn't go his way (remember how unfair the GOP delegate rules were, except the ones that gave him winner-take-all victories). I don't believe in his heart Trump is a bigot, but he's willing to use bigotry to delegitimize this judge ahead of time.

Do you see how Trump is trying to have it both ways? "I'm not insulting Hispanics and in fact Hispanics actually love me, but this guy being Hispanic will be biased against me because I have to assume he took offense at what I said".

This seems a recognition different people within this group will act differently. Is there any doubt some Hispanics are motivated against him by his comments or beliefs? This complaint seems to boil down to "Trump is racist because he undersells how many Hispanics are against him", which seems quite at odds with the original assertion Trump is racist because he believes the Judge's bias is related to his ethnicity.

Trump is trying to set the stage for claiming the judge's upcoming ruling is unfair, just like he thinks everything is unfair when it doesn't go his way

He's emotionally linking himself to conservatives who believe officials discriminate against them for their political opinions (school race preferences, firing Brendan Eich, Academia and government hiring discrimination, IRS dual standards). This is a long way afield from "his statement is racist".

But "race" is not "shorthand" for ethnicity. It is meant to set up a smear and tarnish. If the judge were an Italian I have no doubt Trump would have said he was unfair because Trump didn't do a deal in Little Italy. Anything you can do to get a judge to stick with the law versus some emotional element of a case!!

"This complaint seems to boil down to "Trump is racist because he undersells how many Hispanics are against him", which seems quite at odds with the original assertion Trump is racist because he believes the Judge's bias is related to his ethnicity."

Well I don't think he is so much a bigot as an opportunist using bigotry--and not because he undersells how many Hispanics are against him (that's just politics) but because he's insinuating that the judge's ethnicity prevents him from being a good judge.

"But "race" is not "shorthand" for ethnicity."

It's not a correct shorthand, just a lazy shorthand. If I used "race" when I meant "ethnicity" it was just sloppiness on my part, but it doesn't mean I think ethnicities are the same as races (though you can be bigoted towards either).

Had Trump pointed to something the judge said, did or wrote, and said "based on this statement, how can he treat me fairly in my case?" that'd be one thing. We do that all the time. But it was bigoted and stupid when Black Panthers used to make the same claims about white judges simply for being white. Trump is doing the same thing here.

That shorter version is yours to keep. It will come in handy thousands of times before November. You can cut and paste the following to save even more time: elitist charge sexism chargeLGBTI hate chargefascist charge

he's insinuating that the judge's ethnicity prevents him from being a good judge.

Trump's not insinuating this. He's asserting the judge doesn't keep his biases out of the court. Trump asserts those biases are tied to ethnicity but that doesn't mean the judge's inability to keep them from his court is caused by ethnicity.

Other than my wife and the federal judge for whom I clerked, I haven't met many judges I respected. I also sympathise with Trump's concern about a judge active in Latino politics sitting on a case involving Trump that will be campaign fodder for the Dems. I call bullshit on the racism stuff.

Having said those things I am uneasy about Trump using his bully pulpit to affect a case with which he is personally involved. I don't know what else he could do. I assume the judge has declined to recuse himself.

Finally, I notice that I am completely indifferent to the perspectives of either journalists or law professors since both occupations are infested by lefties who shamelessly promote their agendas.

Its lame to explain a joke, but - La Raza is a college political/ethnic club, and functions as a fraternity - Sigma Alpha Epsilon is a frat that has a lot of get-in-the-door pull in Wall Street. Thats how La Raza recruits, mainly on Cal State campuses. The Mafia because it functions like like that for "made men" in government service.

Its tied to all the other Mafia families in government - just from today - BofA is TOLD BY THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT to give La Raza (among others of its ilk) $1.5M as part of a mortgage fraud settlement. Tell me this isn't corruption. Frankly, the Marcos Administration wasn't as open in its corruption.

Bank of America has been able to reduce a multi-billion dollar mortgage fraud penalty imposed by the Justice Department by giving millions of dollars to liberal groups approved by the Obama administration.

The bank has wiped about $194 million off its record $16.6 billion 2014 mortgage settlement by donating to nonprofits and legal groups. Thanks to little-known provisions in the settlement, the bank only had to make $84 million in donations to do that.

The bank wasn't exploiting any loophole. It's a key part of the deal the Justice Department offered to get it to settle in the first place. For every dollar the bank has given the nonprofits — none of which were victims of fraud themselves — it has claimed at least two dollars off the settlement. The deal ensured the Obama administration that a certain part of the settlement funds would go to friendly liberal groups, bypassing the normal congressional appropriations.

Among the groups receiving the money were Hispanic civil rights group the National Council of La Raza ($1.5 million), the National Urban League ($1.1 million) and the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America ($750,000).

Trump talks in short hand -- he's said his problem with PC is that it takes too long. And that is true, but the downside of talking in short hand is your words can be easily twisted. Thus his un-PC comments about drug dealers and rapists coming in from Mexico were twisted for obvious political reasons and translated to mean he said all Mexicans are drug dealers and rapists. But when I dug deeper into CA jail population and the over representation of illegal immigrants from Mexico I realized that Trump was right. And as others have stated, Mexican citizenship policies do tend to encourage their criminals to leave since they can never be more than Mexican nationals without full citizen rights.

Likewise Trump makes a crack about the judge in his case being Mexican, shorthand for his judge is biased because of Trump's statements about illegal immigration. All of a sudden I'm reading about La Raza and seeing banners at their demonstrations saying things like: "This is OUR continent, not yours." And I'm reading about Obama waving regulations against hiring lobbyists to hire a VP of La Raza who then doubled federal funding for La Raza. And looking at a video of a high school teacher in LA speaking about La Raza as a world wide revolutionary movement and the revolutionaries he is training. etc. Pushing for open borders, etc. Of course anyone connected with La Raza would be diametrically opposed to the positions Trump has been asserting and likely prejudiced against him. That's what Trump was saying in shorthand.

This goes way beyond my personal anecdotal experiences of living in an area with a large Hispanic population where clerks will ignore you if you are Anglo, be cordial and friendly if you are Hispanic, and speak to each other in Spanish as if you are invisible without consequence. I'm repulsed by how liberal whites assume that non-whites will be nicer when they are in charge. I wish that were true but I've seen no evidence of it. La Raza is a far cry from promoting "one nation, indivisible."

Sorry, Professor, rules are rules. They come from the left and we honestly try to keep up and we adjust when the rules change. And we wait patiently for new ones, for they seem to arrive with alarming frequency these days. The rules are mysterious, I'll grant you that, but that is a feature, not a bug. Rules that are mysterious in origin or illogical are that much more frustrating to adhere to and so it is that much easier to punish the folks who inadvertently (or purposely... there's no need to distinguish) break them.

any judge that is a member of a hate group that calls itself "The Race" [and not referring to the human race!] has probably crossed some ethical boundaries that needs to be investigated. As a litigant in his courtroom, I would not feel comfortable that I would get a fair shake if I was not of the Judge's Race.

"They say it in Spanish though, to distract from the fact that it was originally said in German."

Its not a racial supremacist idea, quite, in the sense of scientific racism, which was quite popular at the time. It seems to have been, rather, a reaction to that, a sort of a "so there!" to the cultural inferiority complex. There are no scientific or philosophical claims attached.

In practice its very much an exclusionary Mexican subculture thing. You are in the club or you are not.

Scientific racism is not itself (solely) a German idea. And the Mexican "raza cosmica" idea, from 1925, predates the popularity of the German Nazis. Scientific racism was not a big thing among the much higher profile Italian fascists of the time.

buwaya said...Its tied to all the other Mafia families in government - just from today - BofA is TOLD BY THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT to give La Raza (among others of its ilk) $1.5M as part of a mortgage fraud settlement. Tell me this isn't corruption.

buwaya's comment about SAE is appropriate for another reason. SAE was founded at the University of Alabama and includes in their culture a lot of Neo-Confederate ethnic exclusion practices. Likewise, La Raza hearkens back to a dream-time when their culture predominated in the Western US.

The name "La Raza" is a 1960s holdover, and the organization is trying to move away from it. Its website (www.nclr.org) makes it pretty clear it's trying to rebrand -- it's got NCLR in large red letters, with National Council of La Raza in much smaller gray letters beneath, and throughout it refers to things like the NCLR Annual Report and the NCLR National Conference.

Did you know that George W. Bush campaigned for La Raza's support in 2000, and that Karl Rove was the featured speaker at La Raza's annual conference in 2006?